True.
Oh, no. If you read back, i’m simply saying you shouldn’t destroy those places with bomb attacks. You can go in with the army, or a terrorism squad, and shoot the place up. That’s fine (well, not fine, but acceptable).
Most definetly. We’re supposed to be the good guys here.
Update: Confusion over al-Qaeda deaths
Meanwhile, 8,000 Pakistanis protested the strikes. Way to build that goodwill there…
So what are you saying? That we should only attack military targets when there is no chance of civilian casualties?
Has there ever been such a war?
And if you can’t see the difference between civilians being killed in a military strike against a military target, and civilians being killed for the purposes of pure retribution and terror, then I don’t know what to say. We speak different languages.
Every time a military target is hit there is a good chance of civilian casualties. Even if you hit an airbasse or a missile site, you might kill janitors, bookkeepers, delivery people, or family members visiting the base.
Also, these are ‘civilians’ who are harboring known terrorists. They aren’t exactly innocents. And if they are putting their own children in harm’s way by having these thugs over over supper, then don’t they deserve some or all of the blame?
Been thinking the same thing all week. Open your home to terrorist, open it to a possible air strike as well.
Yeah…'cause you know that Pakistan would have been a hotbed of US support otherwise, ehe? :dubious:
Been following this thread and I still can’t see how folks can seriously equate a military strike at military targets that unintentionally killed civilians with strikes directly at civilians with the purpose of killing said civilians. Even if the intelligence had been wrong (jury still out but looks like they weren’t entirely), the intention was still to kill military targets…not the civilians that happened to be there.
Its a tough call to authorize such a strike knowing the likelyhood that civilians are in proximity and could or even will be killed. When it came down to it Clinton choose not to send in a strike he knew would kill civilians on the off chance he’d get Bin Laden. In retrospect perhaps this was a bad call…but seeing the heat from all the armchair general types second guessing everything that Bush gets its pretty understandable.
-XT
I am saying it is terrorism to knowingly and repeatedly target civilian residences that with all certainty house noncombatant women and children.
Why don’t we just limit our attacks to military targets, instead of blowing up villages on very thin evidence? This is not the first time we have done this, with obscene collateral damage and very little military impact to show for it.
Since this was not a military target, I don’t know what you are raving about here. The mere presence of combatants does not justify the wholesale slaughter of every woman and child with misfortune of being in range of a Hellfire missile. Where do you draw the line? 3 houses? 30? 300? Any one of them might have a terrorist lurking inside, does that make it OK? How many dead children is too many?
You know for a fact that all the civilian dead were collaborators? Your sources of intelligence must be far more accurate than all the resources of the US military and CIA. If not, is sounds like you are just trying to justify the blood on your hands.
First of all, please explain to me what an al-Qaida ‘military target’ looks like. They don’t have offices, bases, airstrips, and tanks. They are insinuated into the civilian population. They travel with civilians, they live with them, and they probably have an intentional policy of keeping themselves surrounded by women and children so that either they won’t be attacked, or an attack will have negative PR consequences. So, what are you going to do? Give up? Wait for them to kill you or your family?
Second, this ‘very thin’ intelligence appears to have been correct. Everyone agrees there were terrorists in that house - the disagreement is over exactly who they were.
Please define ‘military target’ then, please. If an al-Qaida leadership cell isn’t a valid target, what is?
Really? In WWII, we carpet-bombed cities to destroy industrial facilities, because we didn’t have bombs accurate enough to precisely target those buildings. You have to deal with the situation you face, using the tools at your disposal. Since al-Qaida doesn’t meet in nice convenient pentagon-shaped buildings, you have to fight them where they are. If that’s within a civilian population, well, that’s the way it goes. And besides, as I pointed out before, it’s a pretty vague line drawn between who is and isn’t a ‘civilian’ in this situation. It seems to me that if you host a dinner in honor of a bunch of terrorists, you’re a terrorist. If you put your wife and kids into that situation, then you’re the one to blame if they get caught in the crossfire.
I prefer to trust the judgement of the U.S. military, who I don’t believe enjoy killing women and children, and only pick targets when they feel it’s justified. You are operating from very little evidence, yet you feel free to play armchair general and decide for them.
You know for a fact that they aren’t? You were the one that jumped to the conclusion that this is terrorism, that the Bush administration and the U.S. military are wrong and evil, yada yada yada.
Let me aask you: Where do YOU draw the line? What if you knew Osama was in that building? Or al-Zawahiri, or Zarqawi? Would it have been justified then?
Let’s say Spain bombs an apartment complex in Brooklyn to get after the Madrid Bombers. They succeed in their mission but kill numerous innocent neighbors who had no idea. Would you be okay with that? Or is it only okay when the U.S does it to THEM instead of others doing it to US?
Let’s get the context straight: For this analogy to work, we have to assume that:
A) this isn’t an ‘apartment building’, it’s a private house in a suburb.
B) Americans hate Spain.
C) A group of terrorists has launched attacks on Spain, then withdrawn into America, where Americans who agree that Spain should be destroyed harbor them.
D) The American government does nothing about it because it’s in a precarious situation due to a powerful anti-Spain faction in the government, so it actually nods at Spain and gives them tacit approval to take matters into their own hands.
E) This neighborhood is a hotbed of anti-Spain sentiment.
F) Spain has good information that a bunch of the terrorists are in this particular house in the suburb, and has no other way to get to them.
Under those conditions, yes, I could understand such an attack.
Let me know when the U.S. starts carpet-bombing Pakistani apartment buildings, and we’ll consider your hypothetical.
That’s why the Pakistani Government has welcomed this with open arms. :wally
In fact they have condemned it out of hand and complained to the US Government.
Of course they did. Musharref has to take a public stand against this to appease the people. On the other hand, you’re not seeing anti-aircraft fire on American jets, are you? We all know how Pakistan is playing this particular game.
And keep your putzes to the pit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060121/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack
"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan’s foreign minister told a senior U.S. diplomat on Saturday that the two countries must work together to avoid a repeat of U.S. attacks like last week’s strike on a Pakistani border village that killed civilians.
Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri made the remarks to visiting U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns at a meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said.
“While reaffirming Pakistan’s commitment to counterterrorism, the foreign minister underlined the need for the two countries to work in a manner that precludes recent incidents like Bajur,” the ministry said in a statement.
“He highlighted the prevailing public sentiment and stressed that such incidents were counterproductive,” it said."
So that is a pretty clear Go Away (4,3) to the US. 
Did you really expect that they would make a public statement of support? They realize how much of an influence AQ has in the bordering region. Musharref could be doing handstands of glee in the back room, but still would make the same public comment for political reasons.
Exactly. Musharref’s head would (literally) roll if he did something so stupid. He HAS to come out with a condemnation, reguardless of how he really feels. His people are already pissed off at even the quasi-support they have been giving the US since the ramp up to the war in Iraq. He’s walking a tight rope over there…just like most of the other rulers in the region.
-XT
Moderator’s Note: Directing the “Putz” smiley at fellow posters outside of the Pit is a violation of the rules against personal insults.
So what does Musharref do next time the US bombs a private house. This sounds like the last chance saloon.
IMHO, Pakistan is going to become an Islamic state on the border of the axis of evil if much more of this happens.
Sorry, didn’t realize that some smilies were x-rated. Won’t do it again.
What do you mean by “Islamic State”? 97% of Pakistanis are Muslim, with 77% of those being Sunni (cite).
As for what happens next time? Depends on the payoff / result. If a table full of terrorist are taken out like this time, then another political intricate dance will take place (will the high 5’s will be restricted to the back room).
Islamic as in ruled by mullahs vs ruled by the army/democratic. I think you knew that.
30,000 is a vast underestimation of innocent civilians killed in this war.